Definitions of Underserved Communities and Wildfire Risk Reduction: More Than a Few Complications

by

I thought I’d pull out some topics from the NFF/FS Wildfire Crisis Strategy Roundtables executive summary for more discussion.
Let’s pull this out:

• Work collaboratively to include a range of values into the criteria that guide prioritization and planning for restoration, fuels treatment, and management, such as:

• Fire risk reduction
• Source-water protection
• Habitat resilience
• Recreation and public access
• Local and regional economies
• Underserved, vulnerable, and fire-impacted communities
• Public health and water and air quality, both rural and urban
• Protecting cultural and heritage resources
• Guide investments through a lens of equity and serving fire-vulnerable communities.
. Recruit workers and share leadership with Tribal and rural communities.
• The definitions of “underserved” and vulnerable communities are not well understood or consistently interpreted.

For those of you who have been around awhile, you might remember that agencies were told they couldn’t prefer local residents for contracts because that was against the FARS. And certainly preferences for local people in federal hiring would be against all kinds of rules. Sharing leadership with rural communities.. well, we still discuss that, although perhaps we’d agree on sharing leadership with Tribes?

I’m not surprised that words like “underserved” and “vulnerable” haven’t been defined.

There is something that happens when people in DC use nice-sounding words, and someone else has to interpret them (see also “sustainability” “equity” various forms of justice “environmental” “climate” “social” and numerous other abstractions). Each agency can develop its own interpretation, NGOs have theirs, and it can lead to all kinds of unnecessary discussion and befuddlement.

I thought perhaps the Biden Administration would have a helpful definition of underserved, especially since in his first day in office President Biden signed Executive Order 13985, Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.

It is therefore the policy of my Administration that the Federal Government should pursue a comprehensive approach to advancing equity for all, including people of color and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality.

Here are the definitions in the EO:

Sec. 2. Definitions. For purposes of this order: (a) The term “equity” means the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality.

(b) The term “underserved communities” refers to populations sharing a particular characteristic, as well as geographic communities, that have been systematically denied a full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic, social, and civic life, as exemplified by the list in the preceding definition of “equity.”

I have to admit, I found this confusing, because:
“consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment” could mean one of (at least) two things. One (1) is today and forward “from now on, everything will be fair just and impartial of everyone”. The other (2) is trying to be fair in the sense of say, Aspen and Breckenridge already finished acres of fuel treatments, and so to be fair, fuel treatments around poorer communities should be brought up to the same level.

I think many of us think that (2) would be the “most fair” approach; but that’s not exactly what the definition says.

An example of a pragmatic approach, Colorado State for its wildfire grant programs has a map of the low income areas, which have to provide less of a match than other areas. Is that fair? Or would it be fairer to focus $ only on low income areas until some level of equity had been established? How inequitable have state grants been so far? Or even more broadly, does anyone keep track of the actual amount of money plugged into wildfire mitigation grants by county or zip or whatever scale? That would be feds, state, counties, NGO partners, landowners? Or it fairness by total acres treated and not by funding levels?

Now, fairness is a very difficult and complex topic in itself. But definitions may also require some kind of data collection, and I’m not sure that information is available. Maybe the first step would be analyze current inequities, and then take specific steps to equalize them.

Finally, in the EO definition, I thought the combination of “persons who live in rural areas” and “members of religious minorities” .. there is one state in particular with a high percentage of people who satisfy both of those criteria.

And yet President Biden also reinstated and added acres to Bears Ears Monument – I’m not sure how equitably this was perceived by folks in Utah. Can you have “fair just and impartial treatment of individuals” without involving them in how those decisions are made? Or in other words, should representatives of all the underserved be involved in determining how to achieve equity for them?

Lots to think about, and it’s not surprising that the people who are supposed to be carrying out this quest for justice have asked for more clarification.

SAF Letter to Forest Service on Old-Growth Forests

by

Folks, The Society of American Foresters recently released a letter to the US Forest Service on old-growth forests. The letter discusses three key themes:

  • Functional and Dynamic Definitions. As reflected in previous definitions of old growth (circa 1989) set by the USDA Forest Service, functional definitions of mature and old growth must mirror the regional variation in ecology found across landscapes and forest types. The established definitions provide a useful foundation for this initiative. However, Section 2(b)’s efforts to also inventory these forests with the intention of long-term conservation requires a dynamic model that can adapt to advances in modern forest science and research as well as changes in conditions like climate, ecology, and disturbance threats. To be functional, therefore, definitions and inventories should include assessments of climate vulnerability, disturbance risks, and other important factors associated with adaptation and conservation, which will help to inform management strategies. Forest conditions, management objectives, and management strategies should be regularly revisited through an iterative administrative process to reflect the dynamic needs of our forests.
  • Education and Outreach. Public perceptions of forestry often incorrectly portray the science of forest management and the values of forestry professionals. Education and outreach from the agencies will be an essential component of a successful campaign to conserve old-growth and mature forests. In large part, our professional community is aligned on the management techniques and strategies required to conserve our forested resources, but public perceptions remain a hinderance to fulfilling these objectives at scale. As attendees noted, the forestry community requires a “social license” from the public to steward our forested resources, particularly when active management is required to foster their conservation. For example, it is not always intuitive to the public that conservation may require active management, or that long-term stability of forest carbon stocks may require near-term tree removal. The 2(b) initiative stands as an opportunity for the US to become a leader in a new era of forestry, one in which we learn to conserve our forests in a changing climate while providing more resources to a growing population. However, this requires a prolific and successful public relations campaign. A successful education and outreach campaign will inform the public that there is a spectrum of science-based strategies for conservation and that forest management can balance conservation objectives while continuing to produce the suite of essential resources that forests provide to humans.
  • Collaboration with Non-Federal Partners. It is vital that the USDA Forest Service and the DOI Bureau of Land Management work with partners to plan and execute the tasks outlined under Section (2)b of E.O. 14072. This includes state, tribal, and local governments as well as universities, industry, and non-profits. Collaboration is important not only to mobilizing the resources necessary to achieve our goals at scale and across boundaries, but also for building a diverse portfolio of knowledge and objectives. In our efforts to connect and educate the public, collaboration will also be a valuable platform for building trust between the federal government and the public.

Should USDA Pursue “Other Transaction Authority” to Encourage Decarbonization Technologies?

by

And now for something completely different…

At a recent Breakthrough Institute conference, I was surprised to hear that some agencies consider that the FARS (Federal Acquisition Regulations) hamper their innovation for various reasons, and have an alternative, called “Other Authorities”.  I am the last person to ask about purchasing or contracting or grants and agreements.  But perhaps other TSW-ites are more familiar with this world?  I met an interesting fellow named Arnab Datta who works for a group called Employ America. Here’s a link to a paper his group generated called “Seven Ways the Executive Branch Can Turbocharge Green Industrial Policy.”  Yes, indeed, it was a serious Coastal Wonkfest, and I was invited to add non-Coastal diversity.

I was thinking we’ve been trying to find commercial uses for woody material for some time in terms of fuels reduction on both private and public land,  for the last 30 or so years, and perhaps this authority might be useful to USDA. It seems to be related to green energy, and perhaps that’s not the best use of the material, but as Willy Sutton said.. “go where the money is”. Through bioenergy and natural climate solutions, perhaps USDA has hit the technology big time and should explore the opportunities that playing with the big technology folks unleashes.

The paper also has thoughts on demand-side use of government purchasing power.

By guaranteeing that demand will be there to validate new capacity, the government can ensure decarbonization progress in the event of a recession or other economic downturn.  While now commonly used for vaccine development, advance market commitments are only starting to be contemplated for green uses.

There are other interesting ideas in there, some possibly only comprehensible to economists in the TSW community.

Here’s their  write-up on Other Authorities. Who knew the gory details of DARPA procurement? Or wondered how the fed $ got to Pfizer and J&J?

Given the technological and commercial uncertainty inherent in the green energy transition, agencies should be prepared to use every tool at their disposal to meet contingencies. OTA is one such tool. While it has been most successfully utilized by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), it has been granted to 11 agencies (with varying restrictions).43 Table 1, below, lists the agencies with OTA powers. OTAs have been extended to more agencies as the tool’s efficacy was consistently demonstrated. In 1989, Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991, which granted DARPA the flexibility to enter into agreements through other transactions.  In the following years, Congress expanded that authority to include prototype development, research, and making advance market commitments.46 In 2016, the OTA was expanded even further to allow follow-on production authority, which permitted successful prototypes to enter full production without the red tape or onerous requirements that tend to benefit larger businesses with compliance budgets. This Congressional expansion was pivotal in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, as both the Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer vaccines were purchased using OTAs.

DARPA’s use of OTA for vaccine development is one example of many in the expansive use of OTAs for promotion of technological advancement. In the early 1990s, DARPA used OTA to enter into an agreement with seven jet engine manufacturers, NASA, and the United States Air Force to create a joint-funding agreement for the Integrated High-Performance Turbine Engine Technology program. A major goal of the program was to advance aircraft and missile turbine engines by using ceramic matrix composite components. Today’s most efficient and high-performing jet engines, such as the F119 and F-135, have better oxidation at higher temperatures, fly longer, and weigh less because of these ceramic matrix composite components. There is a vital through line connecting OTA investment in ceramic fiber research and production and today’s cutting-edge jet engines.

OTA contracts can be structured to benefit the government’s balance sheet, rather than simply “giving away” funding to the private sector. DARPA has used its OTA to reap significant returns on its investment and scale up innovative technology for commercial use. In the 1990s, DARPA provided funds to the Environmental Research Institute of Michigan at Ann Arbor (ERIM) to create an interferometric synthetic aperture radar for terrain elevation mapping. The radar provided necessary military capabilities for terrain and elevation data collection and analysis in any weather conditions, day or night. Unfortunately, no DOD office had sufficient operating funds to maintain full ownership of the radar. Rather than abandon the project, DARPA was able to use an OTA to contract out the radar for commercial purposes. In technical terms, DARPA initiated an OTA with DARPA; ERIM; and a private company, Intermap USA, in which the company agreed to pay all operating, maintenance, and upgrade costs of the radar. Intermap paid royalties to DARPA for the radar and DARPA eventually recouped the complete cost of the radar’s development through this licensing agreement.51 The radar formed the basis of Intermap’s mapping technology, and as the company improved the radar, it became a leading firm in geospatial content development. By using OTA to lower operating costs on a ucial radar and receive payment for the investment in the radar, DARPA saved millions of dollars while helping advance the technological frontier.

NASA has also used OTA to stimulate the commercial market for innovative technologies. In 2006, NASA created the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program with the goal of advancing private technologies for space transportation services. NASA awarded funding under its OTA through the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program to SpaceX, which resulted in the Falcon 9 launch—“the first private rocket capable of carrying humans to space.” From 2006 to 2014, NASA obligated more than $2.2 billion of appropriated funds under OTA to spur public-private partnerships and advance national space initiatives.

Finally, OTA can be used to overcome hurdles that are limiting private participation in federal contracts. In 2010, the Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) entered into an OTA agreement with an oil company to research and develop new drilling technology with the goal of improving the performance of geothermal energy wells.  ARPA-E estimated that this technology could unlock 100,000 or more megawatts of geothermal energy by 2050. However, the company was concerned about “march-in rights” that allowed the government to take control of a patent if certain conditions were not met. In response, ARPA-E crafted an OTA that addressed the company’s concerns. While there are sound reasons why the federal government may want to “nationalize” intellectual property in certain situations,  OTA provides the flexibility to go in another direction if existing intellectual property restrictions are severely limiting private participation.

Furthermore, ARPA-E included a clause requiring any invention developed under the agreement to be substantially manufactured in the United States—promoting domestic manufacturing through an OTA agreement.
These examples demonstrate that OTA provides agencies the authority to engage in creative contractual structures in a manner that can overcome roadblocks to private investment and development while achieving important public policy purposes. The 11 agencies face some limitations on their OTAs; a helpful summary is available in Table 1 below.  Decarbonization is an all-hands-on-deck challenge, and each agency should strive to use their OTA alongside flexible appropriations to connect their missions and goals with the steps needed to advance the green energy transition.

I posted Table 1 in an image above.

While every agency should review their OTA in alignment with the green energy transition, DOE and ARPA-E’s missions are well aligned to the goals of green industrial policy. With permanent OTA, ARPAE is in the best position to ensure long-term, innovative, clean energy solutions. The ARPA-E director has complete discretion in utilizing OTAs. Though Congress provided the DOE with ample oversight in entering into agreements through other transactions, DOE has not taken full advantage of its authority. From 2010-2014, DOE entered into 14 OTA agreements and ARPA-E had 12 OTA agreements, while NASA completed more than 13,000 OTA agreements in the same four-year span. 8 ARPA-E was appropriated $450 million in FY 2022 and currently has $755 million unobligated that could be used to further ARPA-E’s mission to “decrease our nation’s dependence on foreign energy sources, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve energy efficiency across the board, and maintain or reestablish U.S. scientific leadership in the energy sector.” Department of Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm and Dr. Jennifer Gerbi, the Acting Director of ARPA-E, should be exploring opportunities to “stretch” the appropriated and unobligated funds to enhance the United States’ energy security by advancing green industrial policy to ensure resilient and long-lasting clean energy  infrastructure.

Decarbonization is a far heavier lift than the Space Race. Back then, we only had to put one ship on the moon. Today’s challenges require the government to engage with nearly every sector of the economy. As in 1958, when OTA was first authorized, we face a generational challenge that will require unprecedented coordination, collaboration, and dedication between the federal government and private industry. As the price of energy continues to rise, families across the country remain subject to the market risks that cause inflationary pressure and price volatility in fossil fuels. It is time for every OTA to be scrutinized and utilized to promote economies of scale through deflationary sources of energy by accelerating investments in the green energy transition.

Tribal Consultation Can Be Difficult: Camp Hale Monument and the White River and Uncompahgre Utes

by

 

 

 

Since Tribes have different histories with different pieces of land, which are the “right” Tribes to consult? And why didn’t the White House know this and take the time to consult? Of course, the Camp Hale Monument designation is an attempt to side-step Congress (we don’t actually know what part of the Monument was endangered by whom, so how important it was to “protect”?) there were probably partisan political motives and this being October, perhaps those motives were time-sensitive. Generally there’s no ticking clock for FS or BLM (or as I’ve said, why not NPS and Wildife Refuges?) Still… if the White House can’t do it right, what hope have the BLM and the Forest Service?

Here’s a story from the

However, one Ute tribe is not happy about the new designation. The Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation in northeastern Utah issued a press release late Wednesday saying they were only consulted a few days before the signing ceremony, were not included in the years-long and ongoing legislative discussions about the Colorado Outdoor Recreation and Economy (CORE) Act that preceded the designation, and will fight it, perhaps in court.

The Ute Indian Tribe’s Uncompahgre Band considers the Camp Hale area part of its traditional homeland by right and by law.

“We’ve tried to work with this Administration, but time after time they refuse to address the real issues tribes are facing,” Ute Indian Tribe Business Committee Chairman and Uncompahgre Band representative Shaun Chapoose said in the release. “Even on our traditional homelands, they refused to work closely with us. These new monuments are an abomination and demonstrate manifest disregard and disrespect of the Ute Indian Tribe’s treaty rights and sovereign status as a federally recognized Indian Tribe. If it’s a fight they want, it’s a fight they will get.”
But the Colorado Times Recorder had an interesting political take on this.. perhaps “some Tribes are more equal than others.”

Chapoose says the White River and Uncompahgre Bands of the Ute Nation were forced out of Colorado, but tribes that are still in the state – such as the Ute Mountain Utes and the Southern Utes — naturally support their state government when it comes to protecting Camp Hale.

“It works for them because they’re residents of Colorado, right?” Chapoose said. “So, politically, it’s in their best interest to be on the right side of the politics there. If somebody would pull out the actual map of Colorado, you will see who was the bands of the Ute that were in that area [Camp Hale]. And you’re going to see it wasn’t no Southern Ute or Ute Mountain Utes. It was the Uncompahgres and the White Rivers.”

The Ute Indian Tribe is a stakeholder in the proposed Uinta Basin Railway, an 85-mile connector between oil fields in the Uinta Basin that would cross tribal land. Bennet, Hickenlooper and Neguse have expressed their support for an Eagle County lawsuit challenging federal approvals for that railway, which would connect to the mainline and send up to 10 oil trains a day through western Eagle County and along the Colorado River.

“OK, so they don’t like the fact that I’m trying to have a rail to take oil and gas from my reservation to a market to generate revenue so I can provide services for my people,” Chapoose said. “They don’t like that, but at the same time, they forget, if I wasn’t removed from where I was to begin with [in Colorado], I wouldn’t be doing this anyway. So people need to remember, I didn’t choose to be removed. They made that choice for me.”

The manager of Eagle County, where Camp Hale is located, has said the oil train plan would exacerbate climate change, endanger the Colorado River and increase pressure to reopen the Tennessee Pass Line along the Eagle River and adjacent to Camp Hale.

Two of the three Eagle County commissioners on hand for Wednesday’s signing ceremony said they were not sure what impact a national monument designation would have on efforts to reopen the Tennessee Pass Line through Eagle County between Dotsero and Pueblo.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, on hand for Wednesday’s ceremony, previously declined to discuss calls for the federal government to derail the Uinta Basin oil trains. Bennet told the Colorado Times Recorder he hoped they would.

Yes,  it’s the same Senator Bennet as the Tribal Co-Management letter. Yes, the Uinta Basin oil trains that the Ute want. Sigh, what does consultation mean again?

I also thought this was interesting..

In a phone interview with the Colorado Times Recorder, Chapoose said the difference is that Utah Republicans consulted his tribe prior to federal action on Bears Ears, which was cut in size by 85% by the Trump administration after being designated by the Obama administration. Biden returned it to its original size, and then some, but Utah is now suing the administration.

 

Regional Forester’s Message on Prescribed Burn Arrest

by

FYI..to all TSW folks..

To all Region 6 employees,

Many of you have probably seen the news and social media coverage about one of our employees arrested for leading a prescribed fire that slopped over onto private lands. There’s a lot of context and additional information about this incident that would be inappropriate to share publicly at this time, but none of that information revolves around the work conducted during the prescribed burn, the professionalism of our employees, partners, and contractors, or how the burn sloped over onto private land.

While I can’t go into specifics around the arrest of the burn boss, I want each of you to know that all times he, and the entire team that engaged on the Starr prescribed fire, had, and continues to have, our full support.

Communication and coordination between all levels of the Forest Service and the department were effectively in place within hours of this incident. This included local, regional, and national level leadership, Fire and Aviation Management leaders, legal counsel, and law enforcement – which reflects our commitment to this important work and our promise to share in the accountability for any and all outcomes.

I spoke with the Burn Boss last night and expressed my support for him and the actions he took in leading the prescribed burn. In addition, I let him know it’s my expectation that the Forest Service will continue to support him throughout any legal actions.

No one person or crew is in this work on their own. I need you to know that I am with you now and into the future, whatever that future may look like.

I trust and respect our firefighters and employees who carry out the complex and dynamic mission of applying fire treatments to the landscape. They are well-trained, well-informed, and well-equipped for the mission.

Prescribed fire is critical to our responsibility to improve the health of our natural landscapes and the safety of our communities, and we are committed to continuing this work together. Thank you all for staying the course.

Glenn Casamassa

Regional Forester

Merkley, Bennet Call for Tribal Stewardship and Co-Management of National Lands

by

Washington, D.C. – Oregon’s U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley, Chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Climate, Forestry, and Natural Resources, sent a letter to U.S. Forest Service Chief Randy Moore highlighting the significance of Tribal stewardship over lands and waters that make up the National Forest System, and the need to continue collaborative participation from Tribal leadership and governments and the federal government. In their letter, the Senators request the development of a policy for Tribal co-management and stewardship of federal forests and grasslands.

…

We encourage the Forest Service to initiate a process for engaging tribal perspectives on co-stewardship, making recommendations for statutory language to further the goals of co-stewardship and to better integrate the core principles of tribal co-stewardship into federal land management.

The Arrested Burn Boss and Implications: And What Do Social Scientists Tell Us About Peoples’ Responses to Escaped Prescribed Fires?

by

High Country News and many others have written stories on the burn boss arrest, including a variety of views on the importance of it.

Fire scientists and prescribed fire practitioners say the reported arrest is unprecedented and shocking. “This is a really big deal,” said Christopher Adlam, a regional fire specialist for Oregon State University’s fire extension program. possible outcomes “Practitioners fear a chilling effect on future operations.”

Others say the incident shouldn’t hurt burning regionally. “It’s an isolated example, and I would not anticipate that it would have a big impact on work that’s going on across the West,” said Lenya Quinn-Davidson, a fire advisor with the University of California Cooperative Extension and the director of the Northern California Prescribed Fire Council.

Just today I was planning a trip and there is a prescribed burn planned in the vicinity posted on Twitter.  Responses to the post on Twitter included weather maps that showed winds coming up later today, questioning the wisdom of the burn plan (oops, a fire weather warning just came up on my screen). Since this is in the area of the North Fork escaped prescribed fire, residents tend to be especially sensitive to potential misapplications.

And if you’re interested.. check out the Hotshot Wakeup podcast today for what he has heard from the ground and context. I like how he imagines being on both sides.. I think we all could use more of this imagining.

Personally I see it the burn boss arrest as one more Malheurian outlier.

But what do we know about peoples’ responses to escaped prescribed burns?

Journalists: I think there’s a story here about what social scientists have learned about how people in communities respond to escaped prescribed burns.

I bet there are other social scientists who have studied this, and please add any suggested references in the comments.  I know Catrin Edgeley at NAU and Trvis Paveglio at U of Idaho and others have done much work in this and related areas.

However, specifically on attitudes about prescribed fire escapes, I did find this interesting piece in Katie McGrath Novak’s recent master’s thesis at CSU on the Elk Fire, an escaped prescribed burn in Colorado.

All of the outreach recipients interviewed expressed continued support for forest restoration projects in their community following the Elk Fire. Most said that their perceptions of prescribed fire had not changed at all as a result of the escape; a few said that, while still supportive of prescribed fire, in the future they would be more interested in learning the qualifications of those implementing burns. Their continued support was often attributed to a sense that wildfire risk in a landscape where fuel loads had not been reduced outweighed the risk of a prescribed fire escaping. Many outreach recipients also attributed the continued support to existing relationships with outreach providers. Several recipients said that they were always aware of the risk associated with prescribed fire, but that they “trusted” the implementers to do their best. At least five of the recipients were planning forest restoration projects before Elk Fire, including two who were planning prescribed burns. All five were still moving forward with the projects at the time of their interviews.

The greatest challenge outreach recipients faced was information accessibility during the fire. During the Elk Fire, most recipients lost electricity; with many also living in an area with no cell service, this made it difficult to get any information. Others expressed that there was not enough information available about the prescribed fire before it escaped or while it was an active wildfire.

It seems like it’s all about trust. And some places are better at it than others, based on personalities and histories through time; and any way you slice it, some places are just…outliers.

McGrath Novak also did a literature review.

While it is important to keep in mind that people utilize multiple sources throughout each stage of their learning process (Ardoin et al. 2013), interactive communication may be the most telling factor in whether an information source is useful and trustworthy (McCaffrey and Olsen 2012). Earned over time through personal relationships and establishing credibility, trust is essential for successful fire management in the WUI (McDaniel 2014). Trust plays a key role in minimizing disorder and facilitating compromise in natural resources decision-making; lack of trust has been cited as a key barrier to implementing management activities (Davenport et al. 2006).

While government agencies are generally perceived as trustworthy information sources, one study found that many WUI residents were unsatisfied with USFS outreach efforts related to
prescribed fire (Paveglio et al. 2009). Non-federal partners often hold stronger relationships with landowners and possess more sophisticated outreach techniques than the USFS alone, and  collaborative groups can establish greater credibility within the community. Defined by Crona and Parker (2012) as “organizations linking diverse actors or groups through some form of strategic bridging process and that are more or less distinct from the parties they work to link”, bridging organizations have been explored as a way to connect stakeholders, managers, and decision-makers in the face of problems too large for a single entity to solve. Some key qualities of successful bridging organizations are their ability to create a politically neutral environment and promote knowledge utilization (Crona and Parker 2012). Established bridging organizations can help work through the challenges of necessary cross-boundary land management collaborations (Cyphers and Schultz 2018). It is important that the outreach entities within a collaborative effort establish consistent, jargon-free language to minimize mixed messages and misunderstandings (McDaniel 2014, Wright 2007).

A literature review by Dupéy and Smith (2018) found that fire professionals are one of the most understudied groups in the social science literature on fire. They note that filling this gap in the literature would provide a better understanding of the perceptions, strategies, and goals of those on the “front line” of fire management. Additionally, despite a growing emphasis in prescribed fire literature on the need for implementation of broad management goals to be tailored to local conditions and stakeholders (Toman et al. 2006, Schindler and Neburka 1997, McCaffrey and Olsen 2012), few empirical studies exist analyzing the factors that go into a successful customization.

Please share your own experiences and any social science studies.

Conservation groups initiate legal action over trespass livestock grazing in Valles Caldera National Preserve

by
About 100 private cattle have been chronically trespassing into Valles Caldera National Preserve in the Jemez Mountains of northern New Mexico for years.

For years, cattle have illegally entered the Valles Caldera National Preserve from neighboring U.S. Forest Service grazing allotments, damaging riparian areas and important wildlife habitat. As one public lands advocate points out below, “Livestock trampling riparian areas of these protected lands has gone on far too long with federal land managers doing too little to stop it.”

Seems like this is example of a “hot potato” being passed between the National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service. This week, conservation groups—including the organization I work for—initiated legal action over trespass livestock grazing in Valles Caldera National Preserve. Below is the press release and link to the notice of intent to sue.

SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO—WildEarth Guardians, Western Watersheds Project, and Caldera Action today filed a notice of intent to sue the National Park Service over Endangered Species Act violations related to illegal livestock grazing in the Valles Caldera National Preserve (VCNP) in the Jemez Mountains of northern New Mexico.

The Valles Caldera was set aside as a National Preserve to protect its unique ecosystems, headwaters, and thriving elk herds. For years, cattle have illegally entered the VCNP from neighboring Forest Service grazing allotments, causing damage to streams, riparian areas, and important wildlife habitat. Despite public outcry from a spectrum of public land users, the Park Service has failed to address the issue.

In his October 2021 confirmation hearing, Park Service Director Charles “Chuck” Sams III promised New Mexico’s Senior Senator Martin Heinrich; “I am committed to figuring a way to ensure that there are no trespass issues.” So far, this promise has gone unfulfilled as over 100 cattle have been documented in the VCNP meadows for most of the past summer.

“I feel a deep sense of betrayal” said Madeleine Carey, Southwest Conservation Manager for WildEarth Guardians. “We were promised this persistent issue would be dealt with and if anything, things have gotten worse. No one from the Park Service has responded to our emails about the cows this summer.”

Even the New Mexico Livestock Board agrees the issue needs attention. In June 2019, NMLB passed a unanimous motion to hold a meeting with the Park Service to develop a solution. Still, the issue of trespass persists. As recently as October 8th, dozens of cattle were spotted in the Valle San Antonio and Valle Toledo, an area closed to cattle grazing under NPS regulations.

“We worked for years with others to get the Valles Caldera into the National Park System because the Park Service has the highest standards of land protection of any federal agency,” said Tom Ribe, Executive Director of Caldera Action, a nonprofit focused on the Jemez Mountains. “We trusted they would protect the Caldera from all sorts of possible damage. They closed the majority of the Preserve to cattle grazing but then looked the other way while cows flooded in across vandalized and damaged fences. We have no idea why the management doesn’t respond to this blatant trespass. It is not consistent with Park Service policies.”

At the beginning of the grazing season in May, volunteers documented the condition of the northern boundary fence between National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service lands. Much of the boundary fence was laying on the ground, cut, or otherwise rendered inoperable. Though the National Park Service has replaced miles of fence, vandalism, tree-falls, and aging fencing continue to allow cattle trespass.

By federal contract, U.S. Forest Service permitted ranchers are not allowed to graze outside of their specific grazing leases. The Forest Service does not enforce the terms of these contracts when the cattle trespass on National Park System lands.

“Livestock trampling riparian areas of these protected lands has gone on far too long with federal land managers doing too little to stop it,” said Cyndi Tuell, Arizona and New Mexico director of Western Watersheds Project. Livestock entering the VCNP have been documented by the Park Service and Forest Service since at least 2017. “It’s frustrating that the Park Service is breaking its promise to New Mexicans to protect the natural resources in Valles Caldera and has let this situation fester for more than five years. Species on the brink of extinction like the Jemez Mountain salamander need swift action, not agency foot-dragging.”

Photos for media use are available here.

Open Letter to Forest Service Leaders on Mature and Old Growth by Jim Furnish

by
Jim Furnish, right, a former deputy chief at the Forest Service, makes a point with Dave Mertz, a former natural resources officer with the agency, on a visit to the Black Hills National Forest. “The Forest Service managers are not keeping up with the real world,” Furnish said. Marc Heller/E&E News

Thanks to Jim Furnish for sending a copy of his letter for discussion.

I write as a loving critic to confront you about the future. Today, my 77th birthday, occasions much reflection after departing the agency over 20 years ago. My hope is that you share this letter broadly to stimulate conversation about agency action on the challenges ahead. I hope you embrace the same goal that inspired me in my career: a Forest Service that achieves greatness equal to that of the magnificent estate in its trust.

From the tempest that roiled the Forest Service in the 1990s emerged a policy and a plan – ecosystem management and the Northwest Forest Plan – that envisioned a very different future predicated on principles of ecological sustainability. The Roadless Area Conservation Rule followed shortly after; controversial within the agency, yes, but broadly appreciated elsewhere. The Roadless Rule withstood lengthy litigation challenges to finally become one of the boldest legacies in agency history. Promising winds of change blew strong toward a learning organization confronting a changing climate, lofty expectations, and fraught politics.

Climate science has advanced evidence of worsening pressures on forests, fire consequences among them, but also highlighting the valuable role forests play by sequestering and storing carbon. President Biden’s recent Executive Order 14072 mandates conservation of mature and old growth forests (MOG), specifically, as a mission priority and opportunity for the Forest Service to use public forest assets to mitigate climate effects. The agency’s response to date has been tepid at best, hardly an enthusiastic embrace of the spirit of the EO to fundamentally remake agency MOG policy in keeping with the promising vision of ecosystem management.

Forest fires provide a visceral drama that MOG forests lack, yet these forests do vastly greater work providing a broad array of ecosystem services that we desperately need, at no cost. I appreciate the challenges of improving agency performance on our fire dilemma, but you must also recognize the linkage between fire issues and MOG imperatives as you address both in synergistic fashion.

The current fire dilemma and MOG opportunity create an urgency to define a different, compelling future. I illustrate this pivot point by citing the owl crisis, when a federal judge determined that agency officials at the highest level had “willfully violated the law” in efforts to appease timber industry. This condemnation prompted Jack Ward Thomas, in one of his first acts as Chief, to demand that employees obey the law. How humiliating. Is it any wonder that forest managers were not in the “room where it happened” during development of the Northwest Forest Plan?

Organizations are birthed, grow and improve, then typically decline, necessitating reformation lest they die. The Forest Service has a storied history, but a clear eyed assessment of the agency today suggests it needs rebirth. I recognize that politics can muddle the waters, but your agency has the resources and obligation to define itself, something it has yet to do in the context of the post-owl ecosystem management era. Responding forcefully to EO 14072 could point the way to a new Forest Service model for effectively addressing forest carbon and fire – and the future.

To that point, I believe your forthcoming MOG policy is a legacy issue, a time of turning. But did you consider an interim prohibition on logging MOG timber, pending completion of measures to conserve MOG forests? Why not evaluate all pending timber sales for their impact on MOG forests? Why no public statements heralding this opportunity to buttress MOG protections? The Forest Service continues to log MOG forests, completely undermining the call to conserve them. Is this simply because EO 14072 does not explicitly prohibit it? In this I hear echoes of the agency’s response to the spotted owl issue. History did not look kindly on the Forest Service’s handling of the owl crisis when the agency failed to take appropriate actions, and history is watching again.

Our national forests and grasslands are increasingly important as climate issues worsen, beckoning you to the challenge of enhancing the role of MOG forests and their carbon attributes. This is not the time for procedural and process delays. Forest carbon possibly represents the most valuable national forest asset, but the Forest Service has not yet elevated consideration and management of forest carbon to the prominent place it deserves. The situation calls for decisive leadership action.

As Deputy Chief, I found myself in the forefront of efforts to resolve the decades-long roadless area controversy. Importantly, the Forest Service’s own logging and road construction activity posed the greatest threat to the integrity of roadless areas. Yet we changed; providing durable protection by developing a timely, forward thinking, effective solution via a federal regulation. You now find yourself in a similar situation as Forest Service enabled logging poses the greatest threat to MOG forests. President Biden’s EO 14072 provides the impetus and justification to advance the conservation legacy of the Forest Service on behalf of MOG forests. I urge you to seize this moment to craft a creative and robust response as you embrace the mandate to steward the public’s magnificent forest estate.